Discussion:
ISLAM AND WOMEN
(too old to reply)
h***@anony.net
2012-05-22 00:04:09 UTC
Permalink
Also quote the following

4.34 women are inferior , whip them if you fear rebellion! What a
moron god who advises such cruelty

Also women who commit a sin should be confined to the home 'till
death overtakes them; etc etc
uNmaivirumbi
2012-05-22 01:43:19 UTC
Permalink
  Also quote the following
4.34 women are inferior , whip them if you fear rebellion! What a
moron god who advises such cruelty
 Also women who commit a sin should be confined to the home 'till
death overtakes them;  etc etc
Everyone should know all humans especially women suffer most in islam
arah
2012-05-22 13:18:41 UTC
Permalink
THE BABY KILLERS

"It feels as if you've been turned inside out. You've just given birth
and finally you feel emptied. You're exhausted. Your breasts are
painfully full of milk. And then you look at your baby. And you see
that she's a little girl. And you know that you have to kill her."
Vaira Mani drops her head in sadness as she recounts the death of a
neighbour's newborn baby. It is as if the child had been hers, for she
speaks with a conviction that seems to come from personal experience.
She knows that I know, and this, unacknowledged and unspoken, creates
a special bond between us.

We are in the village of Usilampatti, about 40 miles west of the holy
city of Madurai in the south Indian state of Tamil Nadu. Usilampatti
has gained notoriety as the centre of the so-called "killing fields of
Madurai", one of many regions where the ancient custom of female
infanticide is still widespread.



Why India Killing 16 million baby Girls

http://bellsouthpwp.net/m/a/maryb683/marybrown/india.htm

Status of Hindu Women VS Muslim Women

The Hindu Woman:
1. The Hindu Woman has no right to divorce her husband.
2. She has no property or inheritance rights.

3. Choice of partner is limited because she can only marry within her
own caste; moreover her horoscope must match that of the intending
bridegroom/family.

4. The family of the girl has to offer an enormous dowry to the
bridegroom/family.

5. If her husband dies she should commit Sati (being cremated with
her dead husband). Since today's law forbids Sati, society mainly
punishes her in other "holy" ways (see below).

6. She cannot remarry.

7. The widow is considered to be a curse and must not be seen in
public. She cannot wear jewelry or colourful clothes. (She should not
even take part in her children's marriage!)

8. Child and infant marriage is encouraged.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Muslim Woman:
1.The Muslim woman has the same right as the Muslim man in all matters
including divorce.
2. She enjoys property and inheritance rights. (Which other religion
grants women these rights?). She can also conduct her own separate
business.

3. She can marry any Muslim of her choice. If her parents choose a
partner for her, her consent must be taken.

4. The dowry in Islam is a gift from a husband to his wife (not the
other way around as is practiced by some ignorant Muslims).

5. A Muslim widow is encouraged to remarry, and her remarriage is the
responsibility of the Muslim society.

6.Mixed marriage is encouraged and is a means to prevent racism
creeping in society.

7. A Muslim mother is given the highest form of respect.

What right do the Hindus have to criticize the Muslims? Have you ever
heard of a Muslim burning his wife? In parts of India women die daily
of dowry deaths - Hindu women being burnt by the husband or in-laws.
The Brahmins are trying to claim that Muslims do not give freedom to
their women. I ask you again. "Do the Hindus respect their women?"

You be the judge.

Experience of a Converted Hindu Woman
My Experiences and How I Find that Islam does not Oppress Women
by by Sister Noor

I came from a purely Hindu family where we were always taught to
regard ourselves (i.e. women) as beings who were eventually to be
married off and have children and serve the husband - whether he was
kind or not. Other than this I found that there were a lot of things
which really oppressed women, such as:
* If a woman was widowed, she would always have to wear a white sari
(costume), eat vegetarian meals, cut her hair short, and never re-
marry. The bride always had to pay the dowry (bridal money) to the
husband's family. And the husband could ask for anything, irrespective
of whether the bride would have difficulty giving it.
* Not only that, if after marriage she was not able to pay the full
dowry she would be both emotionally and physically tortured, and could
end up being a victim of "kitchen death" where the husband, or both
the mother-in-law and the husband try to set fire to the wife while
she is cooking or is in the kitchen, and try to make it look like an
accidental death. More and more of these instances are taking place.
The daughter of a friend of my own father's had the same fate last
year!

* In addition to all this, men in Hinduism are treated literally as
among the gods. In one of the religious Hindu celebrations, unmarried
girls pray for and worship an idol representing a particular god
(Shira) so that they may have husbands like him. Even my own mother
had asked me to do this. This made me see that the Hindu religion
which is based on superstitions and things that have no manifest
proof , but were merely traditions which oppressed women could not be
right.

Subsequently, when I came to England to study, I thought that at least
this is a country which gives equal rights to men and women, and does
not oppress them. We all have the freedom to do as we like, I thought.
Well, as I started to meet people and make new friends, learn about
this new society, and go to all the places my friends went to in order
to "socialise" (bars, dance halls, etc.). I realised that this
"equality" was not so true in practice as it was in theory.
Outwardly, women were seen to be given equal rights in education,
work, and so forth, but in reality women were still oppressed in a
different, more subtle way. When I went with my friends to those
places they hung out at, I found everybody interested to talk to me
and I thought that was normal. But it was only later that I realised
how naïve I was, and recognised what these people were really looking
for. I soon began to feel uncomfortable, as if I was not myself: I had
to dress in a certain way so that people would like me, and had to
talk in a certain way to please them. I soon found that I was feeling
more and more uncomfortable, less and less myself, yet I could not get
out. Everybody was saying they were enjoying themselves, but I don't
call this enjoying.

I think women in this way of life are oppressed; they have to dress in
a certain way in order to please and appear more appealing, and also
talk in a certain way so people like them. During this time I had not
thought about Islam, even though I had some Muslim acquaintances. But
I felt I really had to do something, to find something that I would be
happy and secure with, and would feel respected with. Something to
believe in that is the right belief, because everybody has a belief
that they live according to. If having fun by getting off with other
people is someone's belief, they do this. If making money is someone's
belief, they do everything to achieve this. If they believe drinking
is one way to enjoy life then they do it. But I feel all this leads to
nowhere; no one is truly satisfied, and the respect women are looking
for is diminishing in this way.

In these days of so called "society of equal rights", you are expected
to have a boyfriend (or you're weird!) and to not be a virgin. So this
is a form of oppression even though some women do not realise it. When
I came to Islam, it was obvious that I had finally found permanent
security. A religion, a belief that was so complete and clear in every
aspect of life. Many people have a misconception that Islam is an
oppressive religion, where women are covered from head to toe, and are
not allowed any freedom or rights. In fact, women in Islam are given
more rights, and have been for the past 1400 years, compared to the
only-recently rights given to non-Muslim women in some western and
some other societies. But there are, even now, societies where women
are still oppressed, as I mentioned earlier in relation to Hindu
women.

Muslim women have the right to inheritance. They have the right to run
their own trade and business. They have the full right to ownership,
property, disposal over their wealth to which the husband has no
right. They have the right to education, a right to refuse marriage as
long as this refusal is according to reasonable and justifiable
grounds. The Qur'an itself, which is the Word of God, contains many
verses commanding men to be kind to their wives and stressing the
rights of women. Islam gives the right set of rules, because they are
NOT made by men, but made by God; hence it is a perfect religion.

Quite often Muslim women are asked why they are covered from head to
toe, and are told that this is oppression - it is not. In Islam,
marriage is an important part of life, the making of the society.
Therefore, a woman should not go around showing herself to everybody,
only for her husband. Even the man is not allowed to show certain
parts of his body to none but his wife. In addition, God has commanded
Muslim women to cover themselves for their modesty:


"O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the
believers to draw their cloaks (veils) over their bodies (when
outdoors). That is most convenient that they could be known as such
(i.e. decent and chaste) and not molested." (Qur'an 33:59)
If we look around at any other society, we find that in the majority
of cases women are attacked and molested because of how they are
dressed. Another point I'd like to comment on is that the rules and
regulation laid down in Islam by God do not apply just to women but to
men also. There is no intermingling and free-running between men and
women for the benefit of both. Whatever God commands is right,
wholesome, pure and beneficial to mankind; there is no doubt about
that. A verse in the Qur'an explains this concept clearly:


"Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and
protect their private parts (i.e. from indecency, illegal sexual acts,
etc.); that will make for greater purity for them. And God is well
aware of what they do. And say to the believing women that they should
lower their gaze and protect their private parts (from indecency,
illegal sexual intercourse, etc.); and that they should not display
their beauty and ornaments . . . " (Qur'an, Surah Al-Nur 24:31)
When I put on my hijab (veil), I was really happy to do it. In fact, I
really want to do it. When I put on the hijab, I felt a great sense of
satisfaction and happiness. Satisfied that I had obeyed God's command.
And happy with the good and blessings that come with it. I have felt
secure and protected. In fact people respect me more for it. I could
really see the difference in behaviour towards me.

Finally, I'd like to say that I had accepted Islam not blindly, or
under any compulsion. In the Qur'an itself there is a verse which says
"Let there be no compulsion in religion". I accepted Islam with
conviction. I have seen, been there, done that, and seen both sides of
the story. I know and have experienced what the other side is like,
and I know that I have done the right thing. Islam does not oppress
women, but rather Islam liberates them and gives them the respect they
deserve. Islam is the religion God has chosen for the whole of
mankind. Those who accept it are truly liberated from the chains and
shackles of mankind whose ruling and legislating necessitates nothing
but the oppression of one group by another and the exploitation and
oppression of one sex by the other. This is not the case of Islam
which truly liberated women and gave them an individuality not given
by any other authority.

Sister Noor embraced Islam while an undergraduate studying in the
Department of Biology at the University of Essex, U. K.
Post by uNmaivirumbi
  Also quote the following
4.34 women are inferior , whip them if you fear rebellion! What a
moron god who advises such cruelty
 Also women who commit a sin should be confined to the home 'till
death overtakes them;  etc etc
Everyone should know all humans especially women suffer most in islam
j***@satx.rr.com
2012-05-22 14:59:41 UTC
Permalink
As Long As Men Take the Qur’an At Face Value, Women Will be At Risk
By Robert Spencer

The treatment of women in Islamic countries is consistently shocking
to modern Westerners, although the fog of political correctness that
blankets the Western world today prevents most observers of the
mistreatment of Muslim women from saying anything about it publicly.
Only a few (notably Pamela Geller) have the courage to prove the
hollowness of that political correctness by pointing out that the
institutionalized oppression of women in majority-Muslim countries is
not the result of non-Islamic cultural factors (as Islamic apologists
in the West often claim), but of Islam itself.


Movements in the Islamic world to restore Islamic purity virtually
always tend to be bad for women. Take, for example, domestic
violence:
the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences has determined that over
nine out of ten Pakistani wives have been struck, beaten, or abused
sexually. The reason why is rooted in the Qur’an. The perpetrators of
such crimes can and do support their behavior by quoting chapter and
verse of the holy book of Islam: “Men have authority over women,
because Allah has made the one superior to the other, and because
they
spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They
guard their unseen parts because Allah has guarded them. As for those
from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds
apart and beat them” (4:34).


When the infallible, perfect and eternal word of Allah sanctions
wife-
beating, why should anyone wonder why ninety percent of wives in
Pakistan have been struck by their husbands?


Western multiculturalist apologists can adduce any argument they wish
to establish that this verse should not be taken literally, but the
problem they face is not convincing the secular West. Modern
Americans, raised with the dogma of tolerance, are only too glad to
believe the best about non-Western culture. The apologists’ most
formidable challenge will be to convince the average Muslim that they
should not beat their wives even though the Qur’an says they can.


Another verse asserts that “women shall with justice have rights
similar to those exercised against them, although men have a status
above women” (2:228). The idea that “men have a status above women”
is
deeply rooted in Islamic tradition. Numerous Islamic commentators on
the Qur’an have taken this statement as self-evident. Only in modern
times have even sporadic and half-hearted attempts begun to explain
it
away. Women as well as men took the superiority of men over women for
granted: Aisha, Muhammad’s notorious child bride, admonished women in
no uncertain terms: “O womenfolk, if you knew the rights that your
husbands have over you, every one of you would wipe the dust from her
husband’s feet with her face.”


Women in Islam are essentially commodities that can be acquired and
discarded at will. If a polygamous Muslim man is unhappy with any of
his wives, he is free to divorce them by saying the triple talaq --
“I
divorce you” or “you are divorced.” Recent fatwas from Islamic
authorities have allowed for this pronouncement of divorce to be made
via cellphone or Skype. Since men can obtain divorces so easily, they
often divorce capriciously. In Islamic law, if a man says talaq to
his
wife three times, even jokingly or in a fit of temper, they must
separate, and cannot reconcile until she marries another man,
consummates that marriage, and is divorced by him. This bizarre law
is
also based on the Qur’an: “A divorce is only permissible twice: after
that, the parties should either hold together on equitable terms, or
separate with kindness....So if a husband divorces his wife
(irrevocably), he cannot, after that, re-marry her until after she
has
married another husband and he has divorced her” (2:229-230).


This has given rise to the phenomenon of “temporary husbands.” After
a
husband has divorced his wife in a fit of pique, these men who will
“marry” the hapless divorcee for one night in order to allow her to
return to her husband and family.


The apparent harshness of all this seems to be mitigated by another
verse from the Qur’an: “If a woman fear ill-treatment or desertion on
the part of her husband, it shall be no offense for them to seek a
mutual agreement, for agreement is best.” But this call for an
agreement is not a call for a meeting of equals — at least as it has
been interpreted in the Hadith. Muhammad’s wife Aisha has given an
influential analysis of this verse: “It concerns the woman whose
husband does not want to keep her with him any longer, but wants to
divorce her and marry some other lady, so she says to him: ‘Keep me
and do not divorce me, and then marry another woman, and you may
neither spend on me, nor sleep with me.’”


As long as men read and believe the Qur’an and the teachings of Islam
in general, women will be despised second-class citizens, subject to
the heartbreak and dehumanization of polygamy, genital mutilation,
honor killings, the threat of an easy and capricious divorce, and
worse — including beatings, false accusations, and the loss of
virtually all of the most basic human freedoms. These are not
phenomena of a group, or a party, or anything so ephemeral: these are
the consequences of regarding the Qur’an as the absolute, eternally
valid and perfect word of Allah. As long as men continue to take the
Qur’an at face value, women will be at risk.


Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and author of the New
York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and
the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book, Did
Muhammad Exist?, is now available.


http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2012/05/atlas-exclusi...
arah
2012-05-22 17:56:27 UTC
Permalink
CLEAR EVIDENCES INDIA IS 1400 YEARS BACKWARD, JUST LIKE THE ARAB
BEFORE PROPHET MUHAMMAD


"....Most of the Arabs at that time were illiterate and drenched in
pagan practices. The society was oppressive and full of vice. Women
had no place in society. They did not inherit any wealth, and were
used by the men merely for their pleasure. In fact, upon the death of
a man, his sons used to inherit all of his wives as well along with
his wealth. Birth of girls in a family was considered to be a curse,
and below the dignity of the family. Thus, the "honourable" Arabs
used
to bury their new born baby girls alive. ,,....


http://www.islamawareness.net/Muhammed/saw.html


16 Million baby girls murdered yearly.


http://bellsouthpwp.net/m/a/maryb683/marybrown/india.htm


Today there is existence of 'kid porn' where children and not adults
are chosen for sexual exploitation.


Ironically child prostitution is a special category of rigorous case
of child labour and it raises more troubling ethical problems than
child labour in general.


http://www.pucl.org/from-archives/Child/prostitution.htm
Post by j***@satx.rr.com
As Long As Men Take the Qur’an At Face Value, Women Will be At Risk
By Robert Spencer
The treatment of women in Islamic countries is consistently shocking
to modern Westerners, although the fog of political correctness that
blankets the Western world today prevents most observers of the
mistreatment of Muslim women from saying anything about it publicly.
Only a few (notably Pamela Geller) have the courage to prove the
hollowness of that political correctness by pointing out that the
institutionalized oppression of women in majority-Muslim countries is
not the result of non-Islamic cultural factors (as Islamic apologists
in the West often claim), but of Islam itself.
Movements in the Islamic world to restore Islamic purity virtually
always tend to be bad for women. Take, for example, domestic
the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences has determined that over
nine out of ten Pakistani wives have been struck, beaten, or abused
sexually. The reason why is rooted in the Qur’an. The perpetrators of
such crimes can and do support their behavior by quoting chapter and
verse of the holy book of Islam: “Men have authority over women,
because Allah has made the one superior to the other, and because
they
spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They
guard their unseen parts because Allah has guarded them. As for those
from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds
apart and beat them” (4:34).
When the infallible, perfect and eternal word of Allah sanctions
wife-
beating, why should anyone wonder why ninety percent of wives in
Pakistan have been struck by their husbands?
Western multiculturalist apologists can adduce any argument they wish
to establish that this verse should not be taken literally, but the
problem they face is not convincing the secular West. Modern
Americans, raised with the dogma of tolerance, are only too glad to
believe the best about non-Western culture. The apologists’ most
formidable challenge will be to convince the average Muslim that they
should not beat their wives even though the Qur’an says they can.
Another verse asserts that “women shall with justice have rights
similar to those exercised against them, although men have a status
above women” (2:228). The idea that “men have a status above women”
is
deeply rooted in Islamic tradition. Numerous Islamic commentators on
the Qur’an have taken this statement as self-evident. Only in modern
times have even sporadic and half-hearted attempts begun to explain
it
away. Women as well as men took the superiority of men over women for
granted: Aisha, Muhammad’s notorious child bride, admonished women in
no uncertain terms: “O womenfolk, if you knew the rights that your
husbands have over you, every one of you would wipe the dust from her
husband’s feet with her face.”
Women in Islam are essentially commodities that can be acquired and
discarded at will. If a polygamous Muslim man is unhappy with any of
his wives, he is free to divorce them by saying the triple talaq --
“I
divorce you” or “you are divorced.” Recent fatwas from Islamic
authorities have allowed for this pronouncement of divorce to be made
via cellphone or Skype. Since men can obtain divorces so easily, they
often divorce capriciously. In Islamic law, if a man says talaq to
his
wife three times, even jokingly or in a fit of temper, they must
separate, and cannot reconcile until she marries another man,
consummates that marriage, and is divorced by him. This bizarre law
is
also based on the Qur’an: “A divorce is only permissible twice: after
that, the parties should either hold together on equitable terms, or
separate with kindness....So if a husband divorces his wife
(irrevocably), he cannot, after that, re-marry her until after she
has
married another husband and he has divorced her” (2:229-230).
This has given rise to the phenomenon of “temporary husbands.” After
a
husband has divorced his wife in a fit of pique, these men who will
“marry” the hapless divorcee for one night in order to allow her to
return to her husband and family.
The apparent harshness of all this seems to be mitigated by another
verse from the Qur’an: “If a woman fear ill-treatment or desertion on
the part of her husband, it shall be no offense for them to seek a
mutual agreement, for agreement is best.” But this call for an
agreement is not a call for a meeting of equals — at least as it has
been interpreted in the Hadith. Muhammad’s wife Aisha has given an
influential analysis of this verse: “It concerns the woman whose
husband does not want to keep her with him any longer, but wants to
divorce her and marry some other lady, so she says to him: ‘Keep me
and do not divorce me, and then marry another woman, and you may
neither spend on me, nor sleep with me.’”
As long as men read and believe the Qur’an and the teachings of Islam
in general, women will be despised second-class citizens, subject to
the heartbreak and dehumanization of polygamy, genital mutilation,
honor killings, the threat of an easy and capricious divorce, and
worse — including beatings, false accusations, and the loss of
virtually all of the most basic human freedoms. These are not
phenomena of a group, or a party, or anything so ephemeral: these are
the consequences of regarding the Qur’an as the absolute, eternally
valid and perfect word of Allah. As long as men continue to take the
Qur’an at face value, women will be at risk.
Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and author of the New
York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and
the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book, Did
Muhammad Exist?, is now available.
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2012/05/atlas-exclusi...
and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj)
2012-05-22 18:14:06 UTC
Permalink
The 'Wondrous' Treatment Of Women In Islam

Forwarded article:

Wondrous Treatment Of Women In Islam

The purpose of this article is to show how the barbaric
nature of Islam manifests itself in the cruel treatment
of women.

1. Lets start with the "great" Mohammed himself, the
founder of this "fabulous" faith. Mohammed was married to
Khadija Bibi, his employer and 15 years his senior. At
that time Mohammed was 25 years old. He was Khadija
Bibi's third husband. Khadija Bibi was a widow when she
married Mohammed. For the first time in his life,
Mohammed enjoyed a luxurious life.

This shows the parasitic nature of Mohammed who married
his employer so that he can live a rich life without
putting in a single day's work.

2. Khadija Bibi died when Mohammed was 49 years old.
Between the ages of 49 and 63 the "great prophet" married
at least 11 times.

This shows how he treated the institution of marriage.
For him, women were nothing but objects for sexual
fulfillment. Marrying at least 11 women in 14 years
throws light on his insatiable sexual appetite.

Read on about the "greatness" of this prophet.

3. Mohammed's favourite wife was Ayesha Bibi who was 6
years old when she was married to him.

Marrying a 6 year old baby clearly shows that Mohammed
was not only a womanizer but also a child molester.

4. Mohammed's adopted son Zayed was married to Zainab,
daughter of Jahsh. But one day the prophet "beheld in a
loose undress, the beauty of Zainab, and burst forth into
an ejaculation of devotion and desire. The servile, or
greatful, freeman (Zayed) understood the hint and yielded
without hesitation to the love of the benefactor."

Mohammed was not satisfied with his own overflowing harem
and had to marry his son's wife. His son being a devoted
follower of the "great" prophet was more than happy to
divorce his wife. What a great father-in-law Mohammed
was, a model for all Islamic father-in-laws!

Mohammed preached what he practised. This is supported by
the following verses from Quran and Hadiths.

Quotes from the "Holy" Quran on Women

II/223: Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate). So
go to your tilth as ye will...

Here you can clearly see how highly Islam treats women.
Women in Islam are referred to as fields that are to be
cultivated by man. What an honour for a Muslim woman!

IV/34: Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath
made the one of them to excel the other.. As for those
from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish
them to beds apart, and scourge them.

First point to notice here is that Quran clearly states
that Men are superior to women. Secondly, Islam instructs
that a man should control his women through brutal
violence and fear.

IV/15: (For women) If any one of your women is guilty of
lewdness ...confine them until death claims them.

IV/16: (For Men) If two men among you commit indecency
(sodomy) punish them both. If they repent and mend their
ways, let them be. Allah is forgiving and merciful.

As you can see, for women any sort of sexual exploration
is punishable by death. Whereas for a man, any form of
perversion is pardoned by the all merciful Allah.

XXIV/6-7: As for those who accuse their wives but have no
witnesses except themselves , let the testimony of one of
them be four testimonies...

Here we see, that a husband can easily accuse his wife
(or wives) and eventually sentence her to death by merely
declaring four times that the accusation is true. On the
other hand, women have no such right in Islam.

Quotes from Hadith TIRMZI AND OTHERS

1. If a woman's conduct is mischievous or immodest, the
husband has the right to beat her up but must not break
her bones. She must not allow anybody to enter the house
if her husband does not like him. She has the right to
expect sustenance of her husband. (TR. P 439)

2. It is forbidden for a woman to be seen by any man
except her husband when she is made up or well-dressed.
(TR. P 430)

3. A woman is not a believer if she undertakes a journey
which may last three days or longer, unless she is
accompanied by her husband, son, father

4. A woman must veil herself even in the presence of her
husband's father, brother and other male relations. (TR.
P 432)

5. She is forbidden to spend any money without the
permission of her husband, and it includes giving food to
the needy or feast to friends. (TR. P 265)

6. A wife is forbidden to perform extra prayers (NAFAL)
or observe fasting (other than RAMADAN) without the
permission of her husband. (TR. P 300)

7. If prostration were a legitimate act other than to
God, woman should have prostrated to her husband. (TR. P
428)

8. If a man is in a mood to have sexual intercourse the
woman must come immediately even if she is baking bread
at a communal oven. (TR. P 428)

9. The marriage of a woman to her man is not substantive.
It is precarious. For example if the father of the
husband orders his son to divorce his wife, he must do
so. (TR. P 440)

10. A woman who seeks KHULA i.e. divorce from her man,
without a just cause, shall not enter paradise. (TR. P
440)

On the contrary, a husband can divorce his wife at will.

11. Majority of women would go to hell. (Muslim P 1431)

12. If a woman refuses to come to bed when invited by her
husband, she becomes the target of the curses of angles.
Exactly the same happens if she deserts her husband's
bed. (Bokhari P 93)

13. Women who are ungrateful to their men are the
denizens of hell; it is an act of ingratitude for a woman
to say: "I have never seen any good from you." (Bokhari P
96)

14. A woman in many ways is deprived of the possession of
her own body. Even her milk belongs to her husband.
(Bokhari P 27) She is not allowed to practise birth
control either.

Quotes From Sahih Muslim Hadith

Chapter 540.The prophet said that he saw a woman coming
and going in the shape of a devil and she fascinated him.
So he came to his wife, Zainab, as she was tanning
leather and had sexual intercourse with her. That drove
out what he felt in his heart.

Chapter 558. The prophet said: "When a man calls his wife
to bed and she does not come, the husband spends the
night being angry with her, and the angels curse her
until morning. The one who is in heaven is displeased
with her until the husband is pleased with her.

Chpater 576. The prophet said :"Woman has been created
from a rib, and will in no way be straightened for you."

Anwar Shaikh, http://www.hindutva.org/anwar.html the
author of Islam: An Arab National Movement says:

"It shows the basic doctrine of Islam about womanhood,
that is, she is basically crooked, and man has the right
to keep her under his constant vigil; she must never be
left alone."

In fact, another hadith expresses woman's position bluntly:

"I have not left any calamity more
hurtful to man than woman."

Chapter 619: Selling a cat, selling a dog (unless it is a
working dog), and earning of prostitutes(unless they are
non-muslims),... are all forbidden.

This verse encourages the Muslim invaders to convert
women of other faith into prostitutes for their own
enjoyment as prostitution by non-muslims is NOT
forbidden. We can see plenty of examples of this
throughout history, especially Indian history.

Chapter 1140: The prophet said : "The majority of those
who entered the fire of Hell were women."

So Islam considers most of the women are evil in nature
and they end up in hell.

Malik 362:1221 Ibn Fahd said "I have some slave girls who
are better than my wives, but I do not desire that they
should all become pregnant. Shall I do azl(withdrawal)
with them?" Hajjaj said "They are your fields of
cultivation. If you wish to irrigate them do so, if not
keep them dry."

The next three verses are related to each other.

Malik 364:1234 If a woman suckles a baby, she becomes its
foster mother and her husband a foster father. If a man
has two wives, and one suckles a boy the other a girl,
the boy can not marry the girl as the foster father of
each is the same.

The next verse contradicts the previous one.

Malik 364:1239 The rule pertaining to foster relationship
only applies to children under 2 years. Thus (Malik
365:1243) a grown up man fed with the milk of a woman
does not entail fostership.

Read the next verse carefully.

Malik 365:1245 A man said, "My wife has willfully given
my slavegirl with whom I used to cohabit her own milk to
drink. What is my relationship to the slave girl ?" Omar
said "Punish your wife and go into your slave girl".

What more can I say about these golden verses from the
"Holy" Quran and the enlightening Hadiths-- guidelines
for every true Muslim!

Gazzali, the renowned Islamic thinker summed up the 18
pains that had been visited on Muslim women as a
punishment for Eve's transgression in paradise. The list
eloquently shows the position of women in Islam and how
the social customs were backed up by Islam. Here Islam
goes to the extent of saying that even pregnancy and
childbirth are punishments from God. Such is the nature
of the all merciful Allah!!!

The 18 punishments are:

1. Menstruation

2. Childbirth

3. Separation from father and mother and marriage to a
stranger

4. Pregnancy

5. Not having control over her own person

6. A lesser share in inheritance.

7. Her liability to be divorced and inability to divorce.

8. It being lawful for man to have 4 wives but for a
woman to have only 1 husband.

9. The fact that she must stay secluded in the house

10. The fact that she must keep her head covered inside
the house.

11. The fact that 2 women's testimonies have to be set
against the testimony of one man.

12. The fact that she must not go out of the house unless
accompanied by a near relative.

13. The fact that men take part in Friday and feast day
funerals while women do not.

14. Disqualification for rulership and judgeship.

15. The fact that merit has 100 components, only one of
which is attributable to women while 999 are attributed
to men.

16. The fact that if women are profligate they will be
given only half as much torment as the rest of the
community at the ressurection day.

17. The fact that if their husbands die they must observe
a waiting period of 4 months and 10 days before they
remarry.

18. The fact that if their husbands divorce them , they
must observe a waiting period of 3 months or 3 menstrual
periods before remarrying.

To enlighten the people who are ignorant about "Sati"
Pratha in India, this custom was a result of Muslim
oppression and brutality. The Hindu women of India, in
order to save their honour, used to jump into the fire
after their husbands were brutally murdered by Muslim
invaders. The question that arises from this is why did
they jump into the fire and kill themselves? Why didn't
they just poison themselves? The reason for this is that
the lecherous necrophiliac muslim invaders did not even
leave the dead bodies alone. Yes, they had sex even with
the dead bodies! How disappointing it must have been for
them to find nothing, but ashes.

This is only a handful of facts that states the true
nature of Islam.

Note: Works of A. Ghosh, Robert E. Burns, and Anwar
Shaikh have been used to compose this article.

End of forwarded article

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

o o o

About the terrorist Goon Squad:

"Myself, Mallu. Yourself?" (V. Bhattathiri)
<***@gmail.com> tries his best to be a bully --
telling others what and when to post, where to post and
where not to post, deliberately publishing lies about
others, stalking and abusing them with hate speech -- but
fails miserably. He is really stressed out, and like his
lap dog Prem Thomas (who currently posts as "P. Rajah"
<***@this.com>, and issues *death threats* to people),
is priming himself for conditions such as stroke and
heart disease. Others in the Goon Squad include
Dayashankar M. Joshi "DMJoshi" <***@gmail.com> who
displays unquestioning obedience to Goon Squad thugs, and
the instigator who posts as "Bholu" <***@hotmail.com

The Goon Squad currently posts most of their abuse
through eternal-september.org and by writing someone
else's name or handle in the "From:" header -- their
favorite now is "***@gmail.com" (note the extra "b"
and "gmail.com") to make it appear as if the posts are
from "***@aol.com", who has been a regular poster for
many years. -Updated on February 2, 2012-

o o o

o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used
for the educational purposes of research and open
discussion. The contents of this post may not have been
authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion
of the poster. The contents are protected by copyright
law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely
not be read, considered or answered if it does not
contain your full legal name, current e-mail and postal
addresses, and live-voice telephone number.

o Posted for information and discussion. Views
expressed by others are not necessarily those of the
poster who may or may not have read the article.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted
material the use of which may or may not have been
specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This
material is being made available in efforts to advance
the understanding of environmental, political, human
rights, economic, democratic, scientific, social, and
cultural, etc., issues. It is believed that this
constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material
as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the
material on this site is distributed without profit to
those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving
the included information for research, comment,
discussion and educational purposes by subscribing to
USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more
information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article
for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you
must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Since newsgroup posts are being removed by forgery by one
or more net terrorists, this post may be reposted several
times.
Nusrat Rizvi
2012-05-23 21:59:11 UTC
Permalink
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/
4. Mohammed's adopted son Zayed was married to Zainab,
daughter of Jahsh. But one day the prophet "beheld in a
loose undress, the beauty of Zainab, and burst forth into
an ejaculation of devotion and desire. The servile, or
greatful, freeman (Zayed) understood the hint and yielded
without hesitation to the love of the benefactor."
Mohammed was not satisfied with his own overflowing harem
and had to marry his son's wife. His son being a devoted
follower of the "great" prophet was more than happy to
divorce his wife. What a great father-in-law Mohammed
was, a model for all Islamic father-in-laws!
Lets not forget an equally critical incident at this juncture.
Did you know Zayed may have lost a wife to his perversion
but Mohammed also gave him immortality cause he is the only one of
Mohammed's contemporaries listed in Koran by name.
This leave one to wonder what special favours has this guy done for
Islam.
Mohammed preached what he practised. This is supported by
the following verses from Quran and Hadiths.
Quotes from the "Holy" Quran on Women
II/223: Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate). So
go to your tilth as ye will...
Here you can clearly see how highly Islam treats women.
Women in Islam are referred to as fields that are to be
cultivated by man. What an honour for a Muslim woman!
IV/34: Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath
made the one of them to excel the other.. As for those
from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish
them to beds apart, and scourge them.
First point to notice here is that Quran clearly states
that Men are superior to women. Secondly, Islam instructs
that a man should control his women through brutal
violence and fear.
IV/15: (For women) If any one of your women is guilty of
lewdness ...confine them until death claims them.
IV/16: (For Men) If two men among you commit indecency
(sodomy) punish them both. If they repent and mend their
ways, let them be. Allah is forgiving and merciful.
As you can see, for women any sort of sexual exploration
is punishable by death. Whereas for a man, any form of
perversion is pardoned by the all merciful Allah.
XXIV/6-7: As for those who accuse their wives but have no
witnesses except themselves , let the testimony of one of
them be four testimonies...
Here we see, that a husband can easily accuse his wife
(or wives) and eventually sentence her to death by merely
declaring four times that the accusation is true. On the
other hand, women have no such right in Islam.
Quotes from Hadith TIRMZI AND OTHERS
1. If a woman's conduct is mischievous or immodest, the
husband has the right to beat her up but must not break
her bones. She must not allow anybody to enter the house
if her husband does not like him. She has the right to
expect sustenance of her husband. (TR. P 439)
2. It is forbidden for a woman to be seen by any man
except her husband when she is made up or well-dressed.
(TR. P 430)
3. A woman is not a believer if she undertakes a journey
which may last three days or longer, unless she is
accompanied by her husband, son, father
4. A woman must veil herself even in the presence of her
husband's father, brother and other male relations. (TR.
P 432)
5. She is forbidden to spend any money without the
permission of her husband, and it includes giving food to
the needy or feast to friends. (TR. P 265)
6. A wife is forbidden to perform extra prayers (NAFAL)
or observe fasting (other than RAMADAN) without the
permission of her husband. (TR. P 300)
7. If prostration were a legitimate act other than to
God, woman should have prostrated to her husband. (TR. P
428)
8. If a man is in a mood to have sexual intercourse the
woman must come immediately even if she is baking bread
at a communal oven. (TR. P 428)
9. The marriage of a woman to her man is not substantive.
It is precarious. For example if the father of the
husband orders his son to divorce his wife, he must do
so. (TR. P 440)
10. A woman who seeks KHULA i.e. divorce from her man,
without a just cause, shall not enter paradise. (TR. P
440)
On the contrary, a husband can divorce his wife at will.
11. Majority of women would go to hell. (Muslim P 1431)
12. If a woman refuses to come to bed when invited by her
husband, she becomes the target of the curses of angles.
Exactly the same happens if she deserts her husband's
bed. (Bokhari P 93)
13. Women who are ungrateful to their men are the
denizens of hell; it is an act of ingratitude for a woman
to say: "I have never seen any good from you." (Bokhari P
96)
14. A woman in many ways is deprived of the possession of
her own body. Even her milk belongs to her husband.
(Bokhari P 27) She is not allowed to practise birth
control either.
Quotes From Sahih Muslim Hadith
Chapter 540.The prophet said that he saw a woman coming
and going in the shape of a devil and she fascinated him.
So he came to his wife, Zainab, as she was tanning
leather and had sexual intercourse with her. That drove
out what he felt in his heart.
Chapter 558. The prophet said: "When a man calls his wife
to bed and she does not come, the husband spends the
night being angry with her, and the angels curse her
until morning. The one who is in heaven is displeased
with her until the husband is pleased with her.
Chpater 576. The prophet said :"Woman has been created
from a rib, and will in no way be straightened for you."
Anwar Shaikh, http://www.hindutva.org/anwar.html the
"It shows the basic doctrine of Islam about womanhood,
that is, she is basically crooked, and man has the right
to keep her under his constant vigil; she must never be
left alone."
"I have not left any calamity more
hurtful to man than woman."
Chapter 619: Selling a cat, selling a dog (unless it is a
working dog), and earning of prostitutes(unless they are
non-muslims),... are all forbidden.
This verse encourages the Muslim invaders to convert
women of other faith into prostitutes for their own
enjoyment as prostitution by non-muslims is NOT
forbidden. We can see plenty of examples of this
throughout history, especially Indian history.
Chapter 1140: The prophet said : "The majority of those
who entered the fire of Hell were women."
So Islam considers most of the women are evil in nature
and they end up in hell.
Malik 362:1221 Ibn Fahd said "I have some slave girls who
are better than my wives, but I do not desire that they
should all become pregnant. Shall I do azl(withdrawal)
with them?" Hajjaj said "They are your fields of
cultivation. If you wish to irrigate them do so, if not
keep them dry."
The next three verses are related to each other.
Malik 364:1234 If a woman suckles a baby, she becomes its
foster mother and her husband a foster father. If a man
has two wives, and one suckles a boy the other a girl,
the boy can not marry the girl as the foster father of
each is the same.
The next verse contradicts the previous one.
Malik 364:1239 The rule pertaining to foster relationship
only applies to children under 2 years. Thus (Malik
365:1243) a grown up man fed with the milk of a woman
does not entail fostership.
Read the next verse carefully.
Malik 365:1245 A man said, "My wife has willfully given
my slavegirl with whom I used to cohabit her own milk to
drink. What is my relationship to the slave girl ?" Omar
said "Punish your wife and go into your slave girl".
What more can I say about these golden verses from the
"Holy" Quran and the enlightening Hadiths-- guidelines
for every true Muslim!
Gazzali, the renowned Islamic thinker summed up the 18
pains that had been visited on Muslim women as a
punishment for Eve's transgression in paradise. The list
eloquently shows the position of women in Islam and how
the social customs were backed up by Islam. Here Islam
goes to the extent of saying that even pregnancy and
childbirth are punishments from God. Such is the nature
of the all merciful Allah!!!
1. Menstruation
2. Childbirth
3. Separation from father and mother and marriage to a
stranger
4. Pregnancy
5. Not having control over her own person
6. A lesser share in inheritance.
7. Her liability to be divorced and inability to divorce.
8. It being lawful for man to have 4 wives but for a
woman to have only 1 husband.
9. The fact that she must stay secluded in the house
10. The fact that she must keep her head covered inside
the house.
11. The fact that 2 women's testimonies have to be set
against the testimony of one man.
12. The fact that she must not go out of the house unless
accompanied by a near relative.
13. The fact that men take part in Friday and feast day
funerals while women do not.
14. Disqualification for rulership and judgeship.
15. The fact that merit has 100 components, only one of
which is attributable to women while 999 are attributed
to men.
16. The fact that if women are profligate they will be
given only half as much torment as the rest of the
community at the ressurection day.
17. The fact that if their husbands die they must observe
a waiting period of 4 months and 10 days before they
remarry.
18. The fact that if their husbands divorce them , they
must observe a waiting period of 3 months or 3 menstrual
periods before remarrying.
To enlighten the people who are ignorant about "Sati"
Pratha in India, this custom was a result of Muslim
oppression and brutality. The Hindu women of India, in
order to save their honour, used to jump into the fire
after their husbands were brutally murdered by Muslim
invaders. The question that arises from this is why did
they jump into the fire and kill themselves? Why didn't
they just poison themselves? The reason for this is that
the lecherous necrophiliac muslim invaders did not even
leave the dead bodies alone. Yes, they had sex even with
the dead bodies! How disappointing it must have been for
them to find nothing, but ashes.
This is only a handful of facts that states the true
nature of Islam.
Note: Works of A. Ghosh, Robert E. Burns, and Anwar
Shaikh have been used to compose this article.
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/
Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
o o o
"Myself, Mallu. Yourself?" (V. Bhattathiri)
telling others what and when to post, where to post and
where not to post, deliberately publishing lies about
others, stalking and abusing them with hate speech -- but
fails miserably. He is really stressed out, and like his
lap dog Prem Thomas (who currently posts as "P. Rajah"
is priming himself for conditions such as stroke and
heart disease. Others in the Goon Squad include
displays unquestioning obedience to Goon Squad thugs, and
The Goon Squad currently posts most of their abuse
through eternal-september.org and by writing someone
else's name or handle in the "From:" header -- their
and "gmail.com") to make it appear as if the posts are
many years. -Updated on February 2, 2012-
o o o
o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used
for the educational purposes of research and open
discussion. The contents of this post may not have been
authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion
of the poster. The contents are protected by copyright
law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely
not be read, considered or answered if it does not
contain your full legal name, current e-mail and postal
addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views
expressed by others are not necessarily those of the
poster who may or may not have read the article.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted
material the use of which may or may not have been
specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This
material is being made available in efforts to advance
the understanding of environmental, political, human
rights, economic, democratic, scientific, social, and
cultural, etc., issues. It is believed that this
constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material
as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the
material on this site is distributed without profit to
those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving
the included information for research, comment,
discussion and educational purposes by subscribing to
USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article
for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you
must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Since newsgroup posts are being removed by forgery by one
or more net terrorists, this post may be reposted several
times.
Topaz
2012-05-24 20:57:23 UTC
Permalink
Judeo Christians think it is the "end times" even though it has been
the "end times" for over two thousand years so far. They think the one
and only hope is for Jesus to return and straighten everything out.
And a big part of the plan is the destroy the world. They think wars
and everything being blown up is a great thing because it means Jesus
will return soon.

Marxists were murderous lowlifes but they said religion is the opium
of the masses. There obviously is some truth to that. Enemies often
have some truth in their arguments. On top of the opium there is the
Jewish propaganda started by Scofield.

Christians are great for telling what some of the problems are, such
as homosexual perversion, feminism etc. But to actually solve these
problems one should look elsewhere. Who do Christians hate the most,
first Hitler and then the Muslims. These are the two who actually
solved the problems that Christians are famous for speaking against.
Maybe the Muslims go a little overboard but they are the opposite of
liberalism. There is no way that "Brokeback Mountain" would be shown
in a Muslim country.


http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com

http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com
j***@satx.rr.com
2012-05-24 23:04:32 UTC
Permalink
http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=22441

Nazism and Islam: Two peas in a pod
Wednesday, December 15, 2010 | Ryan Jones

Nazism and Islam share common values and, more importantly, a common
enemy in the Jews, World War II-era Palestinian Arab leader Haj Amin
al-Husseini is cited as telling his German benefactors in the latest
survey of declassified US wartime documents.

Prepared by the US National Archives, the report titled “Hitler’s
Shadow” references thousands of declassified intelligence and
diplomatic reports in detailing Husseini’s active cooperation with the
Nazi leadership in its quest to rid the world of the Jewish people.

According to the report, Husseini was paid an enormous salary for
fomenting hatred of the Jews in “Palestine” and for helping to recruit
Muslims as Nazi soldiers. His contract with the Nazis also promised
Husseini rulership over Palestine at the successful conclusion of the
war.

One document cites Adolf Hitler as telling Husseini that Nazi
Germany’s only aim in conquering Palestine was to eradicate the Jewish
presence there. After that, the country would be Husseini’s to rule as
he saw fit.

During a later recruitment trip to a Muslim-dominated part of Croatia,
Husseini praised new Muslim recruits to the Nazi military, and stated
that “the entire Muslim world ought to follow their example.”

Amazingly, or perhaps no so amazingly, as the war came to a close and
it was clear the Nazis were going to lose, the British authorities in
the Middle East were actually open to letting Husseini return and lead
the Palestinian Arabs there.

One of the diplomatic cables has the British head of Mandatory
Palestine’s Criminal Investigation Division telling the US assistant
military attache in Cairo that Husseini could unite the regions Arabs
and “cool off the Zionists. Of course, we can’t do it, but it might
not be such a damn bad idea at that.”

The report concludes by noting that despite the mountain of evidence
against him, the Allied powers allowed Husseini to flee to Syria after
the war and did not pursue a criminal investigation. Husseini died in
Beirut in 1974 as a hero among his people.

The international community’s lenient treatment of Husseini even
though he had openly collaborated with modern history’s most brutal
and criminal dictatorship was again repeated when the world decided to
take the most blood-soaked terrorist in history, Yasser Arafat, and
reward him by making him a head of state.
Topaz
2012-05-25 20:39:42 UTC
Permalink
By Ahmad Rami

"The Zionist control of the media imposes a kind of media terrorism
and hypocrisy, in such a way that many Swedes have a public opinion
which they express on radio and TV. If [a Swede] wants to live a
normal life and have work, he must claim to be Israel's friend and the
enemy of Israel's enemies. But when you talk to regular Swedes, and
even authors, privately, they are all against Israel and against the
Zionist occupation. Nevertheless, if Israel finds itself in danger and
if we become stronger than it, no Westerner will come to its defense.
"The Jews in the West, and this has become a tradition, have 100%
complete control of the media, of the political parties, of the trade
unions, and of the publishing houses. They politically control all the
parties, from Right to Left.

"We can say today... I gave a lecture in Berlin recently, and a young
man said to me: 'If we, the free people, get to rule [this country],
we will help the Palestinian people.' I said to him: 'Brother, if you
liberate Germany from Israeli control and occupation, we will talk
about Palestine. The problem is that Israel and the Jews are using
you, your strength, and your technology to fight us.'

"Ninety percent of the Israeli infrastructure was built with West
German money. Therefore, Israel is a criminal beggar who receives
money and aid and imposes his terms on those who support him.
Generally, the one giving aid is the one who dictates the terms
whereas Israel receives aid, yet humiliates Germany, for example, and
imposes its terms upon it.

"If the Jews were satisfied with the occupation of Palestine, the
Westerners might not have had a problem. The problem is that they are
occupying America, they are occupying France and the West in general.
in terms of media, and culture and politics. This is real occupation.
"The difference between the occupation of Palestine and that of the
West is that in Palestine, the occupation is mechanical and military,
whereas the occupation of the West is an occupation of values, of
mind, of ideology, and of culture. The Palestinian and South Lebanese
bodies still have antibodies, whereas the Jewish occupation of the
West resembles a cancer, a cancerous tumor, which the body cannot
feel, and thus it can spread. They are trying to do the same thing in
the Arab world. They use the normalization of relations to make this
tumor spread throughout the Arab and Islamic world, and to paralyze
us, to turn into cancer."

"The Jew is proud of being a Jew. He has called his country 'the
Jewish State.' Why don't we call things by their real names? I have
interviewed Jews who said that 99% of the Jews support Israel and act
to help it."

"When I lived in Morocco, I could have criticized anything except the
ruler, who is the king. When I reached Sweden, I found that I could
criticize anything and anyone..." But I have no right to criticize the
true rulers, the Jews. Moreover, the Jews are trying to implement a
policy of stages, like Kissinger's policy. First they fought to
prohibit the criticizing of Jews and of Judaism. They succeeded in
bringing about laws forbidding the criticism of Jews. The second
stage, in which they have now succeeded, is the prohibition on
criticizing Zionism.

"In the trial against me, which lasted six months, I was accused of
lack of respect for the Jewish people. My lawyer told the general
prosecutor that Ahmad Rami is criticizing only the Jews, not the
Zionists...

I was sentenced to six months in jail. The general prosecutor said:
'When Ahmad Rami says Zionist, he means Jew.' They read what's on my
mind. [...]

"The Jewish organizations are very smart, and they control the
situation in the West. They studied the political map and infiltrated
all parties, from Right to Left. They have completely occupied the
political parties."

"There is a battle between dead nations and living nations. The Jews
are now active. They have occupied the entire world, and they are
using their power worldwide to annihilate us and humiliate us, from
inside and out. Their control stems entirely from the weakness of the
Westerners.

"As far as I'm concerned, Judaism is not a religion. Judaism is a
criminal and dangerous mafia."


http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com

http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com
fanabba
2012-05-25 20:58:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@satx.rr.com
http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=22441
Nazism and Islam: Two peas in a pod
Wednesday, December 15, 2010 | Ryan Jones
Nazism and Islam share common values and, more importantly, a common
enemy in the Jews, World War II-era Palestinian Arab leader Haj Amin
al-Husseini is cited as telling his German benefactors in the latest
survey of declassified US wartime documents.
Prepared by the US National Archives, the report titled “Hitler’s
Shadow” references thousands of declassified intelligence and
diplomatic reports in detailing Husseini’s active cooperation with the
Nazi leadership in its quest to rid the world of the Jewish people.
According to the report, Husseini was paid an enormous salary for
fomenting hatred of the Jews in “Palestine” and for helping to recruit
Muslims as Nazi soldiers. His contract with the Nazis also promised
Husseini rulership over Palestine at the successful conclusion of the
war.
One document cites Adolf Hitler as telling Husseini that Nazi
Germany’s only aim in conquering Palestine was to eradicate the Jewish
presence there. After that, the country would be Husseini’s to rule as
he saw fit.
During a later recruitment trip to a Muslim-dominated part of Croatia,
Husseini praised new Muslim recruits to the Nazi military, and stated
that “the entire Muslim world ought to follow their example.”
Amazingly, or perhaps no so amazingly, as the war came to a close and
it was clear the Nazis were going to lose, the British authorities in
the Middle East were actually open to letting Husseini return and lead
the Palestinian Arabs there.
One of the diplomatic cables has the British head of Mandatory
Palestine’s Criminal Investigation Division telling the US assistant
military attache in Cairo that Husseini could unite the regions Arabs
and “cool off the Zionists. Of course, we can’t do it, but it might
not be such a damn bad idea at that.”
The report concludes by noting that despite the mountain of evidence
against him, the Allied powers allowed Husseini to flee to Syria after
the war and did not pursue a criminal investigation. Husseini died in
Beirut in 1974 as a hero among his people.
The international community’s lenient treatment of Husseini even
though he had openly collaborated with modern history’s most brutal
and criminal dictatorship was again repeated when the world decided to
take the most blood-soaked terrorist in history, Yasser Arafat, and
reward him by making him a head of state.
Islam is far worse than Nazism.
Nazism only killed 6 million. Islam has killed 270 million.
and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj)
2012-05-25 21:15:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by fanabba
http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=3D178&nid=3D22441
Nazism and Islam: Two peas in a pod
Wednesday, December 15, 2010 | Ryan Jones
Nazism and Islam share common values and, more importantly, a common
enemy in the Jews, World War II-era Palestinian Arab leader Haj Amin
al-Husseini is cited as telling his German benefactors in the latest
survey of declassified US wartime documents.
Prepared by the US National Archives, the report titled =93Hitler=92s
Shadow=94 references thousands of declassified intelligence and
diplomatic reports in detailing Husseini=92s active cooperation with the
Nazi leadership in its quest to rid the world of the Jewish people.
According to the report, Husseini was paid an enormous salary for
fomenting hatred of the Jews in =93Palestine=94 and for helping to recrui=
t
Muslims as Nazi soldiers. His contract with the Nazis also promised
Husseini rulership over Palestine at the successful conclusion of the
war.
One document cites Adolf Hitler as telling Husseini that Nazi
Germany=92s only aim in conquering Palestine was to eradicate the Jewish
presence there. After that, the country would be Husseini=92s to rule as
he saw fit.
During a later recruitment trip to a Muslim-dominated part of Croatia,
Husseini praised new Muslim recruits to the Nazi military, and stated
that =93the entire Muslim world ought to follow their example.=94
Amazingly, or perhaps no so amazingly, as the war came to a close and
it was clear the Nazis were going to lose, the British authorities in
the Middle East were actually open to letting Husseini return and lead
the Palestinian Arabs there.
One of the diplomatic cables has the British head of Mandatory
Palestine=92s Criminal Investigation Division telling the US assistant
military attache in Cairo that Husseini could unite the regions Arabs
and =93cool off the Zionists. Of course, we can=92t do it, but it might
not be such a damn bad idea at that.=94
The report concludes by noting that despite the mountain of evidence
against him, the Allied powers allowed Husseini to flee to Syria after
the war and did not pursue a criminal investigation. Husseini died in
Beirut in 1974 as a hero among his people.
The international community=92s lenient treatment of Husseini even
though he had openly collaborated with modern history=92s most brutal
and criminal dictatorship was again repeated when the world decided to
take the most blood-soaked terrorist in history, Yasser Arafat, and
reward him by making him a head of state.
Islam is far worse than Nazism.
Nazism only killed 6 million. Islam has killed 270
million.
Dhanyavaad for your post!

Islam is a terrorist, death cult.

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

o o o

About the terrorist Goon Squad:

"Myself, Mallu. Yourself?" (V. Bhattathiri)
<***@gmail.com> tries his best to be a bully --
telling others what and when to post, where to post and
where not to post, deliberately publishing lies about
others, stalking and abusing them with hate speech -- but
fails miserably. He is really stressed out, and like his
lap dog Prem Thomas (who currently posts as "P. Rajah"
<***@this.com>, and issues *death threats* to people),
is priming himself for conditions such as stroke and
heart disease. Others in the Goon Squad include
Dayashankar M. Joshi "DMJoshi" <***@gmail.com> who
displays unquestioning obedience to Goon Squad thugs, and
the instigator who posts as "Bholu" <***@hotmail.com>

The Goon Squad currently posts most of their abuse
through eternal-september.org and by writing someone
else's name or handle in the "From:" header -- their
favorite now is "***@gmail.com" (note the extra "b"
and "gmail.com") to make it appear as if the posts are
from "***@aol.com", who has been a regular poster for
many years.
-Updated on February 2, 2012-
Topaz
2012-05-26 14:02:03 UTC
Permalink
Tiptoeing around Our Problems
By Dr. William Pierce

"We've been talking about the very dangerous situation in the Middle
East recently, just because so much is happening there, and
undoubtedly we'll be talking about it much more in the future. For
that reason I want to make very clear what my motives and sympathies
are, lest I lead anyone astray and be thought a hypocrite for doing
so. First, regarding Palestine: although my sympathies definitely lie
with the Palestinians rather than with the Jews, it is not horror at
what the Jews are doing to the Palestinians that motivates me. What
motivates me is horror that my country is being used by the Jews in
their war against the Palestinians. If America were not involved at
all in the Middle East I still would sympathize with the Palestinians
and I would wish that they could be successful in driving the Jews
into the sea and annihilating the abomination that is Israel, but that
conflict between Jews and Palestinians would not be a major concern
for me. At least, my
concern there would be dwarfed by my concern for problems more
directly involving my own people in America and in Europe and in
southern Africa.

Even now, with money and weapons being supplied by America and used to
slaughter Palestinians, my concern is much less with monsters like
Ariel Sharon who are doing the slaughtering than it is with the filthy
creatures among my own people in America who are collaborating with
Jews here to keep the weapons and money flowing to Sharon -- and are
ready to do whatever else the Jews require of them here or abroad.

So when I tell you about Jews in occupied Palestine shooting
Palestinian children, and disapproval and anger are evident in my
voice, what I really am angry about is that the American people, my
people, are being used for this murderous activity. I am angry that
America's whole foreign policy has been perverted to serve Jewish
interests at the expense of American interests. I am angry that
America's political system has been perverted to ensure that we always
have so-called "leaders," whether Democrat or Republican, who are
dependent on the Jewish media or Jewish money or both for their
election and consequently will do the bidding of the Jews. I am angry
that our whole government is riddled with Jews -- Jews in our Defense
Department, Jews in our State
Department, Jews in our Immigration and Naturalization Service, Jews
in our Justice Department, Jews in the President's speech-writing
staff - who really set the policies of our government behind the
scenes, while the politicians are out front in the spotlight making
speeches and kissing babies - and doing as they're told by the Jews
behind the
scenes.

Did you know that it was a Jewish speechwriter, David Frum, who put
the phrase "axis of evil" in George Bush's mouth to justify America's
ongoing war against Israel's enemies? Did you know that a clique of
Jews in the Defense Department and among George Bush's foreign policy
advisers are the people actually running the so-called "war on terror"
in Afghanistan: a war that they intend to expand to Iraq and any other
Middle Eastern country that gets uppity, in order to make that part of
the world safe for Israel at American expense? Secretary of Defense
Donald Rumsfeld is a front man for his nominal subordinates, Deputy
Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and Deputy Undersecretary of
Defense for Policy Douglas Feith; and George Bush's official foreign
policy adviser, Condoleezza Rice, helps him meet his Black quota for
the Cabinet, but it is the Jew Richard Perle, chairman of Bush's
Defense Policy Board, who gives him his foreign policy directives.

As I've said on more than one occasion, George Bush is a feckless
nincompoop who couldn't come up with a defense policy or a foreign
policy on his own if he had to -- which is why he's President. The
real policymakers behind the scenes certainly don't want a man in the
White House who has ideas of his own, because those ideas might
conflict with theirs.

And it is nothing but empty sophistry to make a distinction between
Jews in Israel, such as Ariel Sharon and Simon Peres, and the Jews in
Mr. Bush's administration formulating his policies or the Jews
controlling our mass media. They all are Jews, and that's what really
matters.

There are many knowledgeable Americans besides me who think that it's
not a good thing to have Jews using America to advance Israel's
interests at the expense of America's interests. They know how the
system works: how the Jews exert their control through money and media
and a well-entrenched network of Jewish operatives, such as Wolfowitz
and Feith and Perle. And many of these knowledgeable Americans also
understand how Jewish subterfuge and deceit work: they understand that
the Jews throw up a lot of smoke to conceal their control and make it
appear that they have much less influence than they actually do.

Despite this degree of understanding that many knowledgeable Americans
have, there seem to be very few who are willing or able to draw the
necessary conclusions. What I keep seeing are comments about the need
to get the so-called "peace process" going again in the Middle East,
and how there are hardline supporters of Israel who are obstructing
the "peace process" because they think that it will give too much to
the Palestinians or will compromise Israel's security, or whatever.
These knowledgeable Americans seem to believe that if we could just
get around the Jewish hardliners somehow -- if we could just
neutralize Jews such as Wolfowitz and Feith and Perle; if Ariel Sharon
could be replaced by a "moderate" Jewish prime minister -- then the
"peace process" could proceed, America could gradually reduce its
involvement in helping the Jews keep the Palestinians repressed, and
eventually Israel no longer would be using America, and everything
would be rosy. And so these knowledgeable Americans expend all of
their wit and energy in these trivial pursuits.

Listen! Do you know what the most hopeful aspect of the conflict
between Jews and Palestinians is now? It is the ongoing radicalization
of the Muslim masses throughout the whole Middle East. The
collaborator governments in Pakistan, in Egypt, in Saudi Arabia are
terrified of the reaction they see among their own people to what
Ariel Sharon is doing to the Palestinians. When Sharon's Jewish troops
shoot Palestinian children, Muslim mobs riot, and governments that now
collaborate with the United States quake. Ariel Sharon is the best
thing that has happened in the Middle East in the last 54 years.

The Palestinian tactic of suicide bombing is being denounced by every
politician and every media spokesman over here now. It's nothing but
terrorism, they all say. There's no justification at all for suicide
bombing, they tell us. Of course, whenever you hear that sort of
unanimity from the politicians and the media people you should be
suspicious. In fact, suicide bombing is the best tactic for the
Palestinians to use now, because it provokes the Jews to step up
reprisals. And the reprisals radicalize the masses in every country in
the Middle East. If just one of the collaborator governments falls,
the spines of all the rest will be stiffened, and the Bush government
will be far less likely to find collaborators for building its
so-called "coalition" to do the will of the Jews in the Middle East.

Suicide bombers now hardly put a dent in the population of five
million Jews in occupied Palestine, and Sharon's bloody reprisals
hardly put a dent in the overall Palestinian population. But if
conflict of this sort continues until just one collaborator government
is overthrown, that ultimately will be worth more than ten thousand
successful suicide
bombings in which only 20 or so Jews are killed each time. In the long
run there can be no real peace in the Middle East and no end to
America's shameful role there -- and no future for the Palestinian
people -- as long as there is an Israel. There seems to be a better
understanding of these things among knowledgeable Palestinians than
among knowledgeable Americans.

Shallow thinking and the pursuit of trivial goals is even worse among
knowledgeable Americans when it comes to domestic problems. They
really do not want to grasp these problems with both hands and deal
with them in a forthright way. Look, for example, at what uncontrolled
immigration has done and is doing to America. And what do
knowledgeable Americans propose to do about that? Very little, really.
They make much of the fact that several of the al-Qaeda hijackers who
carried out the September 11 attack were in the United States only
because of very lax immigration policies, and so that's a good reason
for tightening up the policies.

How about simply rounding up all illegal aliens immediately -- all 12
million of them -- and booting them and all of their offspring out of
the country without further ado?

Oh, no, no, no! We can't do that! Why not? Well, the media never would
stand for it. The media would be all over anyone who even proposed a
mass expulsion of illegal aliens. They would denounce any political
leader who tried to do that as a "racist" and a "neo-Nazi." And so
knowledgeable Americans, who understand the immigration disaster quite
well, continue tiptoeing around it, afraid to do or even say anything
really significant about it: terrified even to think about really
radical solutions that might actually end the problem. And it's the
same with the rest of our domestic problems. Lots of people understand
these problems and are worried about them, but they won't tackle them
in any
significant way. They let the Jews -- the Jewish media and Jewish
money and the entrenched Jewish network -- have their way, for all
practical purposes.

Why? Why are the Jews permitted to get away with all of their
destructive policies and activities without being challenged or
opposed in any significant way? Part of the reason is that the Jews
are very powerful, and therefore many people are afraid to cross them.
They're afraid of the sort of media reaction I just mentioned in
connection with immigration. Everyone understands that the Jews stick
together and will viciously attack anyone who opposes them. It's the
old story, so aptly expressed by the late-16th-century writer, Sir
John Harington. Harington wrote: "Treason doth never prosper: what's
the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason." Today the
Jewish power structure is
prospering, and none dare oppose it or even call it what it is. Well,
that's only part of the reason Jews are permitted to get away with so
much. There's more to it than that. There's a mystique the Jews have
built very carefully around themselves and nurtured diligently. It is
a mystique of piety and injured innocence. It is a mystique that says
to the Gentile world: "We are a gentle and inoffensive race, and
because of this everyone hates us. We're smart and we work hard and
achieve success, and because of this everyone hates us. We are a
highly moral and ethical race, and because of this everyone hates us.
We are a very talented race, with many gifted members, many geniuses,
and because of this everyone hates us. We are a very altruistic race,
a race of philanthropists who only want to make a better world for
everyone, and because of this everyone hates us."

Many simpletons among the lemmings simply accept these claims at face
value. Many knowledgeable people, however, who can see through these
claims to the real Jews hiding behind them, still hesitate to
challenge them. Part of the Jewish mystique is the so-called
"Holocaust." In its most simpleminded form the "Holocaust" story is
the claim that the
Germans hated the Jews for the reasons I just mentioned -- for their
gentleness and their success and their morality and their talent and
their altruism -- and because of this hatred roasted six million of
them during the Second World War in "gas ovens," to use one of the
Jews' favorite "Holocaust" phrases.

Actually, the "Holocaust" is a very powerful part of the Jewish
mystique. The Jews crafted the "Holocaust" story with great care and
great effort -- well, actually not with as much care as they might
have used: it's as full of holes as a Swiss cheese, but still it is
sufficient to make most people, even those who understand what Jews
are really like, hesitate to attack them. People don't want to be seen
as bullies. They don't want to be seen as so insensitive that they
would criticize the Jews, who already have suffered so much, poor
dears, at the hands of anti-Semites.

In several past broadcasts we've looked at a number of the lies and
exaggerations and distortions that make up the "Holocaust" story.
There are a number of good books available on the subject from the
sponsor of this broadcast, National Vanguard Books, including Norman
Finklestein's excellent book The Holocaust Industry, which I discussed
in an earlier broadcast. The point is that despite the lies, despite
the fact that many knowledgeable Americans are aware of the lies, the
"Holocaust" still serves its purpose for the Jews. People are afraid
of the image conjured up by the "Holocaust."

Perhaps it's that American life is too soft... Whatever the reason,
many otherwise knowledgeable and hardheaded Americans just can't
entertain the idea of rounding up the Jews and getting rid of them,
even when the situation is as urgent as it is in America today. And
really, in the long run that is the only way to solve the Jewish
problem.

The Germans understood that, back in the 1930s, and they had the
courage and the foresight to act on their understanding. Unlike
Americans today, they had an honest government concerned above all
with the survival, welfare, and progress of the German people, and
they began doing what was necessary, forcing the Jews to emigrate
wholesale from Germany beginning in 1933. And because of that the
Jewish propaganda machine has attacked the Germans so viciously, has
so blackened and demonized their image, that today even knowledgeable
people are afraid to be associated with that image. They are afraid to
say that the Germans were right, that the Germans were justified, and
that we need to do the same if we are to survive. So, as I said, the
"Holocaust" story, despite its
glaring discrepancies and lies, still serves as a shield for the Jews;
it still protects them from criticism.

Well, mostly. In parts of Europe not quite as poisoned by Jewish
propaganda as America is, the shield has slipped a bit. A large
British department store chain, Selfridges, has yielded to demands
from anti-Israel demonstrators and has removed from its shelves
products marked "Made in Israel." Last week the second largest
supermarket chain in Norway, Coop Norge -- which is to say, Norway
Coop, announced its decision to boycott all Israeli imports. That
decision was not the result of pressure from anti-Israel demonstrators
but was based on the feeling by Coop Norge management that it would be
immoral to continue supporting the Israeli economy by selling Israeli
imports under the
present circumstances. That is a step forward, though it is a long way
from what is needed.

The Jews, of course, immediately began waving their "Holocaust" story
around, and now, as the boycott movement catches hold in Scandinavia,
they are trying to portray themselves as injured innocents being
attacked once more by "anti-Semites." They are comparing the growing
Scandinavian boycott of Israeli products to the German boycott of
Jewish merchants in the late 1930s. Certainly, a boycott of Israeli
products is a good thing, and the fact that such a boycott is even
thinkable by big businessmen today is a sign that the Jewish mystique
-- and in particular the Jewish "Holocaust" story -- is becoming a bit
shopworn. It no longer has the hypnotic power that it once had -- at
least, in some parts of the world. And I suppose that we should be
happy about that. The unfortunate fact remains, however, that in
America the Jews still have their money and
their media and their entrenched network of bureaucrats, and even if
the "Holocaust" story has lost some of its charm in Europe, it still
keeps most knowledgeable Americans intimidated.

Knowledge isn't enough. Courage and boldness also are necessary.
Honesty and forthrightness are necessary also. Tiptoeing around the
critical issues of our time isn't enough. Tiny reforms in our
disastrous foreign policy and in our disastrous immigration policy and
in a dozen other disastrous policies aren't enough. We need to stop
apologizing to the people who are destroying us and go full bore at
destroying them instead.

Instead of being hypnotized by the "Holocaust" story we need to look
with clear eyes at why there was a need for action against the Jews in
Germany in the 1930s and 1940s. The Jews' claim today that the Germans
were suffering from collective insanity and had no reason for trying
to get the Jews off their backs is as phony as George Bush's claim
that
Osama bin Laden had no reason for attacking America on September 11.

Wherever Jews go they corrupt and destroy. That is their nature,
always and everywhere. Let us be thankful to the Palestinians who now
are making such terrible sacrifices to help the world see what the
Jews are like. And I suppose we also should be thankful to Ariel
Sharon for demonstrating so forthrightly to the world what Jews are
like.

Let us hope that the conflict between Jews and Palestinians
intensifies and lasts long enough to wake up many more of our people
around the world and fill them with disgust at America's continuing
support for the Jews. Let us hope that it lasts long enough to bring
about the overthrow of every collaborationist regime in the Muslim
world. Let us hope that it brings about an airtight oil embargo
against the United States and shuts off the lights in every shopping
mall and every sports stadium in America long enough for the lemmings
to become restless and begin asking questions. Let us hope that it
makes the efforts of every fool and every traitor who is striving for
a resumption of the so-called "peace process" so obviously futile that
these efforts no longer have the power to deceive anyone.

Ultimately, of course, we must not depend on the Palestinian suicide
bombers or on Ariel Sharon's murder squads to do for us what we should
be doing for ourselves. Ultimately we must stop tiptoeing and begin
marching boldly and forthrightly toward solving our own problems."


http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com

http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com

Topaz
2012-05-26 14:01:11 UTC
Permalink
The Holocaust Cowing and Milking of Nations By Alex Linder

'Holocaust': The Means by Which the Richest Group in the World
Contrives to Cow and Milk the Rest of the Us in the Guise of Victims
who are Persecuted and Due Eternal Restitution.

Reading through a thousand blog reactions to Duke v Blitzer on CNN, a
generalization crystallizes. People confuse being told something six
million times with knowing something. They are not the same. "It ain't
what you don't know, it's what you know that just ain't so." The
average man 'knows' the Holocaust exists because:

1) everybody uses the term;
2) he has seen photos of stacked bodies;
3) he has read Anne Frank's book;
4) authorities agree that questioning any of this is 'hate.'

In other words, the average man believes in the Holocaust for no
logical reason, but out of simple mammalian conformity.
'Holocaust' is a loaded, dishonest term. You can't debate with
undefined terms without making a joke of yourself, but the average man
does not realize this. It is the part of public school, reinforced by
mass media, to disable his thinking so that he's worse positioned to
defend himself because he can't understand how he is manipulated to
accept the illogical. Debate in the mass media of a democracy is
nothing but the shuffling of loaded terms.

'Holocaust' is no ordinary noun. Rather, it is a loaded gun leveled at
the head of the West and the rest. Give them their money and their
pride of place or get your head and reputation blown off. You will
notice that never, ever does debate in the captive media condescend to
deconstruct the Zionist Privilege embodied in and sanctified by the
designer label 'Holocaust.' Worship the Zionists and submit to their
demands - that is what the term Holocaust means.

A demand for special privilege protected by a shell of pseudo-history;
that is an objective description of the term. The heart of the
'Holocaust,' taking at face value the term's pretension to historical
designation, is the claim that six million Jews were murdered by Nazi
Germany, most of them by gassing. The evidence for the gassing is
never discussed. Photos of crematories and bodies stacked like cord
wood are shown. No context or explanation of the reason for showing
them is given. The connection is to be assumed. But never is any
ordinary evidence, let alone proof, of the gassing allegation
advanced. That Jews were gassed is treated as though it were already
proved and therefore unquestionable, save by the depraved. Thus, the
practical job of the media and the well intentioned everyman is to
smear and ostracize anybody who argues against settled truth. We all
know that Jews were gassed, and that those who say otherwise are
deniers driven by hate. But it ain't so just because "everybody knows"
it is.

We are told repeatedly that the 'Holocaust' is both the worst thing
that ever happened and the best documented thing in human history. We
are to take these assertions on authority, since no genuine debate is
allowed.

There are men who can prove the 'Holocaust' is a Big Lie. You can find
them in jail. Their imprisonment is scarcely mentioned in the mass
media. Their imprisonment goes unlamented by the mass columnists. To
discuss these men and their work would endanger the Propa-sphere the
media construct. They must disappear. But we know, mass media. And
we're not going away. We're getting louder and stronger. And there's
nothing you can do to stop us.



http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com

http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com
j***@satx.rr.com
2012-05-22 20:08:29 UTC
Permalink
On May 22, 12:56 pm, arah <***@gmail.com> wrote:

"CLEAR EVIDENCES INDIA IS 1400 YEARS BACKWARD, JUST LIKE THE ARAB
BEFORE PROPHET MUHAMMAD "


Muslims killed 80 million hindus in 500 years

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1419812/pg1

Will Durant, the famous historian summed it up like this:

"The Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in
history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that
civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex of order and
freedom, culture and peace, can at any moment be overthrown by
barbarians invading from without or multiplying within."

Koenraad Elst , the german historian writes in "Negation in India"

The Muslim conquests, down to the 16th century, were for the Hindus a
pure struggle of life and death. Entire cities were burnt down and the
populations massacred, with hundreds of thousands killed in every
campaign, and similar numbers deported as slaves. Every new invader
made (often literally) his hills of Hindus skulls. Thus, the conquest
of Afghanistan in the year 1000 was followed by the annihilation of
the Hindu population; the region is still called the Hindu Kush, i.e.
Hindu slaughter. The Bahmani sultans (1347-1480) in central India made
it a rule to kill 100,000 captives in a single day, and many more on
other occasions. The conquest of the Vijayanagar empire in 1564 left
the capital plus large areas of Karnataka depopulated. And so on.

As a contribution to research on the quantity of the Islamic crimes
against humanity, we may mention that the Indian (subcontinent)
population decreased by 80 million between 1000 (conquest of
Afghanistan) and 1525 (end of Delhi Sultanate)..

But the Indian Pagans were far too numerous and never fully
surrendered. What some call the Muslim period in Indian history, was
in reality a continuous war of occupiers against resisters, in which
the Muslim rulers were finally defeated in the 18th century. Against
these rebellious Pagans the Muslim rulers preferred to avoid total
confrontation, and to accept the compromise which the (in India
dominant) Hanifite school of Islamic law made possible. Alone among
the four Islamic law schools, the school of Hanifa gave Muslim rulers
the right not to offer the Pagans the sole choice between death and
conversion, but to allow them toleration as zimmis (protected ones)
living under 20 humiliating conditions, and to collect the jizya
(toleration tax) from them. Normally the zimmi status was only open to
Jews and Christians (and even that concession was condemned by jurists
of the Hanbalite school like lbn Taymiya), which explains why these
communities have survived in Muslim countries while most other
religions have not. On these conditions some of the higher Hindu
castes could be found willing to collaborate, so that a more or less
stable polity could be set up. Even then, the collaboration of the
Rajputs with the Moghul rulers, or of the Kayasthas with the Nawab
dynasty, one became a smooth arrangement when enlightened rulers like
Akbar (whom orthodox Muslims consider an apostate) cancelled these
humiliating conditions and the jizya tax.

It is because of Hanifite law that many Muslim rulers in India
considered themselves exempted from the duty to continue the genocide
on the Hindus (self-exemption for which they were persistently
reprimanded by their mullahs). Moreover, the Turkish and Afghan
invaders also fought each other, so they often had to ally themselves
with accursed unbelievers against fellow Muslims. After the conquests,
Islamic occupation gradually lost its character of a total campaign to
destroy the Pagans. Many Muslim rulers preferred to enjoy the revenue
from stable and prosperous kingdoms, and were content to extract the
jizya tax, and to limit their conversion effort to material incentives
and support to the missionary campaigns of sufis and mullahs (in fact,
for less zealous rulers, the jizya was an incentive to discourage
conversions, as these would mean a loss of revenue).

by Anonymous

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1419812/pg1
uNmaivirumbi
2012-05-22 21:40:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@satx.rr.com
"The Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in
history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that
civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex of order and
freedom, culture and peace, can at any moment be overthrown by
barbarians invading from without or multiplying within."
Thanks. Mullahs like arah do not reply. They just cut and paste. They
are Taliban Al-Qaeda artists on the web

Thanks for your post. Let us fight for true justice and peace
and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj)
2012-05-22 21:54:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by uNmaivirumbi
Post by j***@satx.rr.com
"The Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in
history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that
civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex of order and
freedom, culture and peace, can at any moment be overthrown by
barbarians invading from without or multiplying within."
Thanks. Mullahs like arah do not reply. They just cut and paste. They
are Taliban Al-Qaeda artists on the web
Thanks for your post. Let us fight for true justice and peace
If Barack Hussein Obama had not banned the war on Islamic
terrorism, these Muslims terrorists could meet the much-
used 72 virgins sooner.

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

o o o

About the terrorist Goon Squad:

"Myself, Mallu. Yourself?" (V. Bhattathiri)
<***@gmail.com> tries his best to be a bully --
telling others what and when to post, where to post and
where not to post, deliberately publishing lies about
others, stalking and abusing them with hate speech -- but
fails miserably. He is really stressed out, and like his
lap dog Prem Thomas (who currently posts as "P. Rajah"
<***@this.com>, and issues *death threats* to people),
is priming himself for conditions such as stroke and
heart disease. Others in the Goon Squad include
Dayashankar M. Joshi "DMJoshi" <***@gmail.com> who
displays unquestioning obedience to Goon Squad thugs, and
the instigator who posts as "Bholu" <***@hotmail.com>

The Goon Squad currently posts most of their abuse
through eternal-september.org and by writing someone
else's name or handle in the "From:" header -- their
favorite now is "***@gmail.com" (note the extra "b"
and "gmail.com") to make it appear as if the posts are
from "***@aol.com", who has been a regular poster for
many years.
-Updated on February 2, 2012-
Nusrat Rizvi
2012-05-22 21:44:24 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 22 May 2012 06:18:41 -0700 (PDT), arah
Post by arah
http://bellsouthpwp.net/m/a/maryb683/marybrown/india.htm
Status of Hindu Women VS Muslim Women
1. The Hindu Woman has no right to divorce her husband.
2. She has no property or inheritance rights.
3. Choice of partner is limited because she can only marry within her
own caste; moreover her horoscope must match that of the intending
bridegroom/family.
4. The family of the girl has to offer an enormous dowry to the
bridegroom/family.
5. If her husband dies she should commit Sati (being cremated with
her dead husband). Since today's law forbids Sati, society mainly
punishes her in other "holy" ways (see below).
6. She cannot remarry.
7. The widow is considered to be a curse and must not be seen in
public. She cannot wear jewelry or colourful clothes. (She should not
even take part in her children's marriage!)
8. Child and infant marriage is encouraged.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.The Muslim woman has the same right as the Muslim man in all matters
including divorce.
You mean she can divorce her husband?
If you say yes then you are not only ignorant of Islamic jurisprudence
but also a liar.
BTW, in Koran 4-34 a husband can hit his wife, but if a wife were to
hit her husband, Allah would at that moment turn into shit, something
he absolutely does not like and hence does not allow a wife to touch
her hubby no matter what cad he maybe.
Post by arah
2. She enjoys property and inheritance rights. (Which other religion
grants women these rights?). She can also conduct her own separate
business.
Excuse me, a son get 3/4 of a mans inheritance a daughter only 1/3.
Some equality
Post by arah
3. She can marry any Muslim of her choice. If her parents choose a
partner for her, her consent must be taken.
As long as that man is a Muslim. A Muslim man can take a Jewish or a
Christian Man, but a woman is not allowed a non Muslim spouse.
Post by arah
4. The dowry in Islam is a gift from a husband to his wife (not the
other way around as is practiced by some ignorant Muslims).
What is your point, Mr. Moron?
Post by arah
5. A Muslim widow is encouraged to remarry, and her remarriage is the
responsibility of the Muslim society.
Again, only to a Muslim.
Post by arah
6.Mixed marriage is encouraged and is a means to prevent racism
creeping in society.
You mean Islam is not agaisnt Negros, who soon became a cash crop as
Islamic armies started to win against non Muslim. This ended all anti
slavery talk in KOran.
Post by arah
7. A Muslim mother is given the highest form of respect.
Till the husband gets a younger wife and throws her into the dust bin.
Post by arah
What right do the Hindus have to criticize the Muslims? Have you ever
heard of a Muslim burning his wife? In parts of India women die daily
of dowry deaths - Hindu women being burnt by the husband or in-laws.
The Brahmins are trying to claim that Muslims do not give freedom to
their women. I ask you again. "Do the Hindus respect their women?"
You be the judge.
Experience of a Converted Hindu Woman
My Experiences and How I Find that Islam does not Oppress Women
by by Sister Noor
I came from a purely Hindu family where we were always taught to
regard ourselves (i.e. women) as beings who were eventually to be
married off and have children and serve the husband - whether he was
kind or not. Other than this I found that there were a lot of things
* If a woman was widowed, she would always have to wear a white sari
(costume), eat vegetarian meals, cut her hair short, and never re-
marry. The bride always had to pay the dowry (bridal money) to the
husband's family. And the husband could ask for anything, irrespective
of whether the bride would have difficulty giving it.
* Not only that, if after marriage she was not able to pay the full
dowry she would be both emotionally and physically tortured, and could
end up being a victim of "kitchen death" where the husband, or both
the mother-in-law and the husband try to set fire to the wife while
she is cooking or is in the kitchen, and try to make it look like an
accidental death. More and more of these instances are taking place.
The daughter of a friend of my own father's had the same fate last
year!
Fucking lying cheat.
Post by arah
* In addition to all this, men in Hinduism are treated literally as
among the gods. In one of the religious Hindu celebrations, unmarried
girls pray for and worship an idol representing a particular god
(Shira) so that they may have husbands like him. Even my own mother
had asked me to do this. This made me see that the Hindu religion
which is based on superstitions and things that have no manifest
proof , but were merely traditions which oppressed women could not be
right.
Subsequently, when I came to England to study, I thought that at least
this is a country which gives equal rights to men and women, and does
not oppress them. We all have the freedom to do as we like, I thought.
Well, as I started to meet people and make new friends, learn about
this new society, and go to all the places my friends went to in order
to "socialise" (bars, dance halls, etc.). I realised that this
"equality" was not so true in practice as it was in theory.
Outwardly, women were seen to be given equal rights in education,
work, and so forth, but in reality women were still oppressed in a
different, more subtle way. When I went with my friends to those
places they hung out at, I found everybody interested to talk to me
and I thought that was normal. But it was only later that I realised
how naïve I was, and recognised what these people were really looking
for. I soon began to feel uncomfortable, as if I was not myself: I had
to dress in a certain way so that people would like me, and had to
talk in a certain way to please them. I soon found that I was feeling
more and more uncomfortable, less and less myself, yet I could not get
out. Everybody was saying they were enjoying themselves, but I don't
call this enjoying.
I think women in this way of life are oppressed; they have to dress in
a certain way in order to please and appear more appealing, and also
talk in a certain way so people like them. During this time I had not
thought about Islam, even though I had some Muslim acquaintances. But
I felt I really had to do something, to find something that I would be
happy and secure with, and would feel respected with. Something to
believe in that is the right belief, because everybody has a belief
that they live according to. If having fun by getting off with other
people is someone's belief, they do this. If making money is someone's
belief, they do everything to achieve this. If they believe drinking
is one way to enjoy life then they do it. But I feel all this leads to
nowhere; no one is truly satisfied, and the respect women are looking
for is diminishing in this way.
In these days of so called "society of equal rights", you are expected
to have a boyfriend (or you're weird!) and to not be a virgin. So this
is a form of oppression even though some women do not realise it. When
I came to Islam, it was obvious that I had finally found permanent
security. A religion, a belief that was so complete and clear in every
aspect of life. Many people have a misconception that Islam is an
oppressive religion, where women are covered from head to toe, and are
not allowed any freedom or rights. In fact, women in Islam are given
more rights, and have been for the past 1400 years, compared to the
only-recently rights given to non-Muslim women in some western and
some other societies. But there are, even now, societies where women
are still oppressed, as I mentioned earlier in relation to Hindu
women.
Muslim women have the right to inheritance. They have the right to run
their own trade and business. They have the full right to ownership,
property, disposal over their wealth to which the husband has no
right. They have the right to education, a right to refuse marriage as
long as this refusal is according to reasonable and justifiable
grounds. The Qur'an itself, which is the Word of God, contains many
verses commanding men to be kind to their wives and stressing the
rights of women. Islam gives the right set of rules, because they are
NOT made by men, but made by God; hence it is a perfect religion.
Quite often Muslim women are asked why they are covered from head to
toe, and are told that this is oppression - it is not. In Islam,
marriage is an important part of life, the making of the society.
Therefore, a woman should not go around showing herself to everybody,
only for her husband. Even the man is not allowed to show certain
parts of his body to none but his wife. In addition, God has commanded
"O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the
believers to draw their cloaks (veils) over their bodies (when
outdoors). That is most convenient that they could be known as such
(i.e. decent and chaste) and not molested." (Qur'an 33:59)
If we look around at any other society, we find that in the majority
of cases women are attacked and molested because of how they are
dressed. Another point I'd like to comment on is that the rules and
regulation laid down in Islam by God do not apply just to women but to
men also. There is no intermingling and free-running between men and
women for the benefit of both. Whatever God commands is right,
wholesome, pure and beneficial to mankind; there is no doubt about
"Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and
protect their private parts (i.e. from indecency, illegal sexual acts,
etc.); that will make for greater purity for them. And God is well
aware of what they do. And say to the believing women that they should
lower their gaze and protect their private parts (from indecency,
illegal sexual intercourse, etc.); and that they should not display
their beauty and ornaments . . . " (Qur'an, Surah Al-Nur 24:31)
When I put on my hijab (veil), I was really happy to do it. In fact, I
really want to do it. When I put on the hijab, I felt a great sense of
satisfaction and happiness. Satisfied that I had obeyed God's command.
And happy with the good and blessings that come with it. I have felt
secure and protected. In fact people respect me more for it. I could
really see the difference in behaviour towards me.
Finally, I'd like to say that I had accepted Islam not blindly, or
under any compulsion. In the Qur'an itself there is a verse which says
"Let there be no compulsion in religion". I accepted Islam with
conviction. I have seen, been there, done that, and seen both sides of
the story. I know and have experienced what the other side is like,
and I know that I have done the right thing. Islam does not oppress
women, but rather Islam liberates them and gives them the respect they
deserve. Islam is the religion God has chosen for the whole of
mankind. Those who accept it are truly liberated from the chains and
shackles of mankind whose ruling and legislating necessitates nothing
but the oppression of one group by another and the exploitation and
oppression of one sex by the other. This is not the case of Islam
which truly liberated women and gave them an individuality not given
by any other authority.
Sister Noor embraced Islam while an undergraduate studying in the
Department of Biology at the University of Essex, U. K.
You wouldn't happen to think sister Noor was a misfit before becoming
a Muslim?
Post by arah
Post by uNmaivirumbi
  Also quote the following
4.34 women are inferior , whip them if you fear rebellion! What a
moron god who advises such cruelty
 Also women who commit a sin should be confined to the home 'till
death overtakes them;  etc etc
Everyone should know all humans especially women suffer most in islam
The bastard never touched your questions, did he?
uNmaivirumbi
2012-05-22 22:00:19 UTC
Permalink
On May 22, 5:44 pm, Nusrat Rizvi <***@optonline.net> wrote:

Thanks for your brilliant comments
p***@inderobr.com
2012-05-22 23:25:45 UTC
Permalink
"Thanks for your brilliant comments"

Blush, thank you for your generous words.
Busty Bristol
2012-05-22 18:17:18 UTC
Permalink
First of all, there IS no god.

Period.

Second, Islam was not established to benefit females. In no small
measure, it was founded by insecure men to gain power and control over
their women, even if that meant killing them, as in honor murders.
Which of course is still a feature of Islam. And Hinduism, too, for
that matter.

Even an inane religion like Christianity doesn't do those things, at
least not within any living person's memory.
and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj)
2012-05-22 18:47:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Busty Bristol
First of all, there IS no god.
Period.
Well, "god" is a Judeo-Christian construct.
Post by Busty Bristol
Second, Islam was not established to benefit females. In
no small measure, it was founded by insecure men to gain
power and control over their women, even if that meant
killing them, as in honor murders. Which of course is
still a feature of Islam. And Hinduism, too, for that
matter.
Even an inane religion like Christianity doesn't do those
things, at least not within any living person's memory.
To learn about women and Hinduism, please visit:

Women in Hinduism

http://www.hinduwisdom.info/Women_in_Hinduism.htm

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
uNmaivirumbi
2012-05-22 21:38:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Busty Bristol
First of all, there IS no god.
We say IS is God
Amro
2012-05-23 09:41:04 UTC
Permalink
Qura 4:128-129

128. If a woman senses oppression or desertion from her husband,
the couple shall try to reconcile their differences,
for conciliation is best for them.
Selfishness is a human trait, and
if you do good and lead a righteous life,
GOD is fully Cognizant of everything you do.


129. You can never be equitable in
dealing with more than one wife,
no matter how hard you try.
Therefore, do not be so biased
as to leave one of them hanging
(neither enjoying marriage,
nor left to marry someone else).
If you correct this situation and
maintain righteousness, GOD
is Forgiver, Most Merciful.

130. If the couple must decide to part,
GOD will provide for each of them
from His bounties.
GOD is Bounteous, Most Wise.
Nusrat Rizvi
2012-05-24 10:58:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amro
Qura 4:128-129
128. If a woman senses oppression or desertion from her husband,
the couple shall try to reconcile their differences,
for conciliation is best for them.
Selfishness is a human trait, and
if you do good and lead a righteous life,
GOD is fully Cognizant of everything you do.
How do you reconcile the above with this shit.
Koran 4-34
Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over
the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So
righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's]
absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom
you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist],
forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them.

Unless you can come back with a reasonable explanation can we be
spared you ass hole writings.
Remember we are not Arab shit in this news group.
Amro
2012-05-24 12:25:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nusrat Rizvi
Post by Amro
Qura 4:128-129
128. If a woman senses oppression or desertion from her husband,
the couple shall try to reconcile their differences,
for conciliation is best for them.
Selfishness is a human trait, and
if you do good and lead a righteous life,
GOD is fully Cognizant of everything you do.
How do you reconcile the above with this shit.
Koran 4-34
Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over
the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So
righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's]
absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom
you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist],
forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them.
The verse establishes the fact that men
financially support their wifes. So if
the wife works and pays half the expenses
for example, then it is a different
equation that what the verse was
established upon.

You should quote the whole verse and the
following verse:

4:34"If they (wives) obey you (husbands)
then don't seek a way of harm against them.
Indeed God is High and Grand.

4:35 "And if you fear a breach between
them send a judge from his family and
a judge from her family. If they want
reconciliation God will reconcile
between them. Indeed God is Aware,
All-Knowing.

You should also quote 4:130


4:130 And if they separate, GOD will
provide for each of them from His
bounties. GOD is Bounteous, Most Wise.
Nusrat Rizvi
2012-05-24 13:53:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amro
Post by Nusrat Rizvi
Post by Amro
Qura 4:128-129
128. If a woman senses oppression or desertion from her husband,
the couple shall try to reconcile their differences,
for conciliation is best for them.
Selfishness is a human trait, and
if you do good and lead a righteous life,
GOD is fully Cognizant of everything you do.
How do you reconcile the above with this shit.
Koran 4-34
Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over
the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So
righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's]
absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom
you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist],
forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them.
The verse establishes the fact that men
financially support their wifes. So if
the wife works and pays half the expenses
for example, then it is a different
equation that what the verse was
established upon.
Why doesn't Koran say it instead of giving men all the power.
Surely Allah knew things may change in time and a time may come where
women may earn more than her husband. Seems all knowing Allah fell
flat on his ass this time.
Post by Amro
You should quote the whole verse and the
4:34"If they (wives) obey you (husbands)
then don't seek a way of harm against them.
Indeed God is High and Grand.
You hid the phrase where it says a husband can strike his recalcitrant
wife.
Now suppose a husband comes home drunk, will Allah allow wife to
strike husband. Or does Allah fears that if a wife were to hit Husband
this would turn Allah into shit hence the prohibition against hitting
hubby?
Post by Amro
4:35 "And if you fear a breach between
them send a judge from his family and
a judge from her family. If they want
reconciliation God will reconcile
between them. Indeed God is Aware,
All-Knowing.
You should also quote 4:130
4:130 And if they separate, GOD will
provide for each of them from His
bounties. GOD is Bounteous, Most Wise.
re
j***@satx.rr.com
2012-05-24 15:02:53 UTC
Permalink
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/003-wife-beating.htm

Question:
Does Islam permit a man to hit his wife?



Summary Answer:
Yes, but only if she doesn't do as he asks. The beating must cease if
the woman complies with her husband's demands. Beating is also
intended to be the last resort of coercing submission, behind verbal
abuse and abandonment.

According her testimony in the Hadith, Muhammad, physically struck his
favorite wife for leaving the house without his permission. It is not
known how he treated his less-favored wives.



The Qur'an:
Qur'an (4:34) - "Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has
made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their
property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen
as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear
desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places
and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them;
surely Allah is High, Great."

Qur'an (38:44) - "And take in your hand a green branch and beat her
with it, and do not break your oath..." Allah telling Job to beat his
wife.



From the Hadith:



Bukhari (72:715) - A woman came to Muhammad and begged her to stop her
husband from beating her. Her skin was bruised so badly that she it
is described as being "greener" than the green veil she was wearing.
Muhammad did not admonish her husband, but instead ordered her to
return to him and submit to his sexual desires.



Bukhari (72:715) - "Aisha said, 'I have not seen any woman suffering
as much as the believing women'" This is Muhammad's own wife
complaining of the abuse that the women of her religions suffer
relative to other women.



Muslim (4:2127) - Muhammad struck his favorite wife, Aisha, in the
chest one evening when she left the house without his permission.
Aisha narrates, "He struck me on the chest which caused me pain."



Muslim (9:3506) - Muhammad's father-in-laws (Abu Bakr and Umar) amused
him by slapping his wives (Aisha and Hafsa) for annoying him.
According to the Hadith, the prophet of Islam laughed upon hearing
this.



Abu Dawud (2141) - "Iyas bin ‘Abd Allah bin Abi Dhubab reported the
Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) as saying: Do not beat
Allah’s handmaidens, but when ‘Umar came to the Apostle of Allah (may
peace be upon him) and said: Women have become emboldened towards
their husbands, he (the Prophet) gave permission to beat them." At
first, Muhammad forbade men from beating their wives, but he rescinded
this once it was reported that women were becoming emboldened toward
their husbands. Beatings are sometimes necessary to keep women in
their place.



Abu Dawud (2142) - "The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: A man will
not be asked as to why he beat his wife."



Abu Dawud (2126) - "A man from the Ansar called Basrah said: 'I
married a virgin woman in her veil. When I entered upon her, I found
her pregnant. (I mentioned this to the Prophet).' The Prophet
(peace_be_upon_him) said: 'She will get the dower, for you made her
vagina lawful for you. The child will be your slave. When she has
begotten (a child), flog her'" A Muslim man thinks his is getting a
virgin, then finds out she is pregnant. Muhammad tells him to treat
the woman as a sex slave and then flog her after she has delivered the
child.



Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 969 - Requires that a married woman be "put in a
separate room and beaten lightly" if she "act in a sexual manner
toward others." According to the Hadith, this can be for an offense
as petty as merely being alone with a man to whom she is not related.



Kash-shaf (the revealer) of al-Zamkhshari (Vol. 1, p. 525) - [Muhammad
said] "Hang up your scourge where your wife can see it"




Additional Notes:


Some contemporary Muslim apologists often squirm over this relatively
straightforward verse from the Qur'an (4:34) - which actually give men
the right to beat their wives if they even have a "fear" of disloyalty
or disobedience. Their masterful aerobics of denial inspired us to
write a separate article:



Wife Beating- Good Enough for Muhammad, Good Enough for You



Others are not nearly as squeamish. Sheikh Yousef al-Qaradhawi, one
of the most respected Muslim clerics in the world, once made the
famous (and somewhat ridiculous statement) that "It is forbidden to
beat the woman, unless it is necessary." He also went on to say that
"one may beat only to safeguard Islamic behavior," leaving no doubt
that wife-beating is a matter of religious sanction. (source)



Dr. Muzammil Saddiqi, the former president of ISNA (the Islamic
Society of North America), a mainstream Muslim organization, says it
is important that a wife "recognizes the authority of her husband in
the house" and that he may use physical force if he is "sure it would
improve the situation." (source)



Sheikh Dr. Ahmad Muhammad Ahmad Al-Tayyeb, the head of Al-Azhar, Sunni
Islam's most prestigious institution says that "light beatings" and
"punching" are part of a program to "reform the wife" (source).



Dr. Jamal Badawi endorses corporal punishment as "another measure that
may save the marriage" (source). He isn't clear on how striking a
woman will make her more inclined toward staying with her assailant,
unless the implication is fear of a more serious beating if she
leaves.



During Ramadan of 2010, another cleric named Sa'd Arafat actually said
the woman is "honored" by the beating (source). No one else seemed
terribly surprised by this.



An undercover report from progressive Sweden in 2012 found that 60% of
mosques there actually advised beaten women not to report the abuse to
the police. These women were also told that they must submit to non-
consensual 'sex' with their husbands. (source)



According to Islamic law, a husband may strike his wife for any one of
the following four reasons:

- She does not attempt to make herself beautiful for him (ie. "let's
herself go")

- She refuses to meet his sexual demands

- She leaves the house without his permission or for a "legitimate
reason"

- She neglects her religious duties

Any of these are also sufficient grounds for divorce.



Respected Quran scholars from the past interpreted verse 4:34 with
impressive candor. Tabari said that it means to "admonish them, but
if they refused to repent, then tie them up in their homes and beat
them until they obey Allah’s commands toward you." Qurtubi told wife-
beaters to try to avoid breaking bones, but added that "it is not a
crime if it leads to death." (source)



Muslim apologists sometimes say that Muhammad ordered that women not
be harmed, but they are actually basing this on what he said before or
during battle, such as in Bukhari (59:447), when Muhammad issued a
command for all the men of Quraiza be killed and the women and
children taken as slaves. (Having your husband murdered and being
forced into sexual slavery apparently doesn't qualify as "harm" under
the Islamic model).



But, in fact, there are a number of cases in which Muhammad did have
women killed in the most brutal fashion. One was Asma bint Marwan, a
mother or five, who wrote a poem criticizing the Medinans for
accepting Muhammad after he had ordered the murder of an elderly man.
In this case, the prophet's assassins literally pulled a sleeping
infant from her breast and stabbed her to death.



After taking Mecca in 630, Muhammad also ordered the murder of a slave
girl who had merely made up songs mocking him. The Hadith are rife as
well with accounts of women planted in the ground on Muhammad's
command and pelted to death with stones for sexual immorality - yet
the prophet of Islam actually encouraged his own men to rape women
captured in battle (Abu Dawood 2150, Muslim 3433) and did not punish
them for killing non-Muslim women (as Khalid ibn Walid did on several
occasions - see Ibn Ishaq 838 and 856).



In summary, according to the Qur'an, Hadith and Islamic law, a woman
may indeed have physical harm done to her if the circumstances
warrant, with one such allowance being in the case of disobedience.
This certainly does not mean that all Muslim men beat their wives,
only that Islam permits them to do so.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...